Order Overruling Objection to Stay of SJ Briefing — Wall v. CDC

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 254 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 7049




                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                             ORLANDO DIVISION


 LUCAS WALL,

                       Plaintiff,

 v.                                                 Case No: 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE
 CONTROL & PREVENTION,
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
 HUMAN SERVICES, GREATER
 ORLANDO AVIATION
 AUTHORITY and CENTRAL
 FLORIDA REGIONAL
 TRANSPORTATION
 AUTHORITY,

                       Defendants.
                                          /

                                         ORDER

         On March 1, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick granted

 the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing, 1 ruling that

 the Federal Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

 due 21 days after the Court enters a final order resolving the pending Motion for a

 Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 248). Magistrate Judge Irick also stated that,

 although Plaintiff opposed the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Stay Summary

 Judgment Briefing, “the Court does not require a response from Plaintiff . . . to rule



 1    The Court refers to Defendants the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
      Department of Health and Human Services collectively as the “Federal Defendants.”
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 254 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 7050




 and manage the progression of this case.” (Id.). The next day, Plaintiff filed the

 instant Motion to the United States District Judge to Vacate a Portion of Magistrate

 Judge Irick’s Order Staying Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

 (Doc. 252), which the Court construes as an Objection under Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure 72(a).

       Rule 72(a) authorizes a district court reviewing a litigant’s objection to a

 magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order to “modify or set aside any part of the

 order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); see also

 Howard v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1372 (M.D.

 Fla. 2011). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to

 support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and

 firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” TemPay, Inc. v. Biltres

 Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (quoting

 United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “An order is contrary

 to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of

 procedure.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

       In his Objection, Plaintiff argues that he had until March 4, 2022, to file a

 response in opposition to the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Stay Summary

 Judgment Briefing and that Magistrate Judge Irick erred in ruling on that request

 three days prior to Plaintiff’s deadline. (Id. at pp. 1–2). Plaintiff further contends

 that Magistrate Judge Irick failed to cite authority allowing him to rule on the

 Federal Defendants’ request prior to Plaintiff’s deadline to submit a response in



                                           2
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 254 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 7051




 opposition or to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id. at

 p. 2). Plaintiff asserts that the stay violates Local Rule 3.01(c), which provides that

 “a party may respond to a motion . . . for summary judgment . . . within [21] days

 after service of the motion,” and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which declares

 that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and

 employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

 determination of every action and proceeding.” (Id. at pp. 2–3). He repeatedly

 emphasizes that he is and has been “stuck in Florida” due to this litigation, and he

 insists that his Motion for Summary Judgment is not duplicative of his Motion for

 a Preliminary Injunction, stating: “The merits comprise only one of four prongs of

 the standard to obtain a preliminary injunction. The Court . . . could possibly deny

 a preliminary injunction without even ruling on the merits if it finds all or any of

 the other three factors are not in my favor.” (Id. at pp. 3–9).

       “A district court has inherent authority to manage its own docket ‘so as to

 achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Equity Lifestyle Props.,

 Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009)

 (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). Moreover, the district

 court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Pursuant to

 this inherent authority, the Court can forgo the 14-day period established by Local

 Rule 3.01(c) for Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the Federal Defendants’

 Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing and stay the said briefing.



                                           3
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 254 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 7052




        Moreover, Plaintiff’s Objection concedes there is at least some overlap

 between the arguments presented in the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and

 the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id. at p. 7). Plaintiff may dispute the degree

 of overlap, but the existence of an overlap is incontrovertible. Again, the Court can

 forgo the 21-day period established by Local Rule 3.01(c) for the Federal

 Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to its

 innate power to control its own docket. And while Plaintiff bemoans any delay in

 the disposition of his case, the Court has a strong interest in minimizing duplicative

 filings.

        Finally, contrary to Plaintiff’s position, the Court believes that the stay of the

 Federal Defendants’ response brief to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

 until the Court resolves Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction promotes

 judicial efficiency. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Irick’s Order Staying Summary

 Judgment Briefing is not “clearly erroneous.”

        Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 252) and

 AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Irick’s Order Staying the Federal Defendants’

 Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

        DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 4, 2022.




                                            4
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 254 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 7053




 Copies furnished to:

 Counsel of Record
 Unrepresented Parties




                                      5


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.254.0.pdf

Size

109,009 bytes

SHA-256

e8228673b7778bae5447e8d4c8e27f8148c39d4e9fe5e42f197c206d2b575d31

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.254.0.pdf

Original

archive.org